MG v Disclosure and Barring Service
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Church |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 89 (AAC) |
| Subject Matter | Safeguarding vulnerable groups - Children’s barred list,Church,TH |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 10 April 2022 |
MG v DBS
[2022] UKUT 89 (AAC)
1
THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case.
No matter relating to the complainant (referred to as the Victim) shall during that
person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of
the public to identify that person as the victim of a sexual offence. This
prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the
Act.
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2019-002079-V
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER (previously V/2417/2019)
Between: MG Appellant
- v –
DBS Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Church, and Members Michele Tynan and
Elizabeth Bainbridge
Decided following an oral hearing on 31 January 2022
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Howarth of counsel (instructed by Ms Sandhal of Messrs
Duncan Lewis)
Respondent: Mr Weiss of counsel (instructed by Ms Finlay of DBS)
DECISION
On appeal from the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”)
DBS Reference: 00894023585
Final Decision Letter: 26 July 2019
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to refuse the appeal. The decision of DBS
made on 26 July 2019 was not made in error of law and is confirmed.
MG v DBS [2022] UKUT 89 (AAC)
Case no: UA-2019-002079-V
2
REASONS FOR DECISION
What this appeal is about
1. This appeal is about MG, a 51-year-old man who in 2018 was working in a senior
role as a Service Manager for Hestia, a charity which, among other things, provides
complex needs accommodation for people who have become homeless.
2. On 04 May 2018 MG was referred to DBS. On 26 July 2019 DBS decided to place
MG’s name on both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List (together,
the “Barred Lists”; the “Barring Decision”).
3. MG appeals the Barring Decision because he wishes to be removed from the
Barred Lists so that he can get back to working directly in the health and social care
sector at management level.
Factual background
4. On 06 March 2018, MG and some colleagues and service users attended the
funeral and wake of a Hestia service user. The death was to be the subject of an
internal investigation which was to be led by MG.
5. After the wake MG and another colleague took a 25-year-old junior female social
worker colleague over whom MG exercised some managerial responsibility (to whom
we will refer as the “Victim” in order to protect her identity) by taxi to a Hestia property
comprising flats and communal spaces that served as a medium support mental health
unit. Later that night MG sexually assaulted the Victim by kissing and sexually touching
her in circumstances in which she was unable either to consent or to indicate lack of
consent, due to being incapacitated by alcohol.
6. Although the Victim had no recollection of events of the night of 06 March 2018,
a service user reported concerns about what they had witnessed that night and the
incident was investigated. Following the employer’s investigation MG was dismissed
from his job with Hestia for gross misconduct on 09 April 2018. The matter was also
investigated by the police and MG was charged with one count of sexual assault
contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the “Index Offence”).
7. MG initially denied the Index Offence, and indeed the employer’s allegations of
gross misconduct, which he attempted unsuccessfully to appeal. However, when
confronted with CCTV footage of the incident he pleaded guilty to the charge. MG was
convicted of the Index Offence on 24 October 2018 at Isleworth Crown Court and
sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (suspended for 24 months), 60 days of
rehabilitation activity, 200 hours of unpaid work, and a £140 victim surcharge. He was
placed on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years.
8. It is accepted that MG has engaged well with the requirements of his sentence
and he continues to do so.
9. MG is now studying for a BSc (Hons) degree in International Business
Management and has set up a consultancy business providing services to start-up
businesses in the health and social care sector, including advice on recruitment,
training, health and safety, policies and procedures and compliance.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
OR v Disclosure and Barring Service
...we will explain below, that is a misapprehension. 41. The ‘transferability’ issue was considered by the Upper Tribunal in MG v DBS [2022] UKUT 89 (AAC) (“MG”). In that case, while MG accepted the inclusion of his 9 OR v Disclosure and Barring Service [2023] UKUT 160 (AAC) Case no: UA-2021-0......